The House of Mirth [DVD]

Edith Wharton is one of my favorite authors, and 'The House of Mirth' is a favorite book. I have read the novel several times and was looking forward to seeing the movie. What a disappointment! The story was so disjointed, leaving out large 'chunks' of the storyline. I felt I was being rushed through at a quick pace. And, Gillian Anderson, Dan Akroyd, Terry Kinney, and Anthony La Paglia were horribly miscast. Only Laura Linney and Eric Stolz were fit for their roles, and Linney just barely.Many of the great novels have successfully transferred to the big screen, such as 'The Remains of the Day', 'Howard's End', and 'The Age of Innocence'. 'The House of Mirth' is not among them.

I love this movie, though I wish the whole story had been included. Gillian Anderson is wonderful. A very sad story. Every time I read or watch this, I get so angry at Lawrence Selden...he never takes one step, or says one word to give Lily a real offer, yet kisses her, waits on her, flirts with her. They seems to be in love. Of course she wants money but she seems always to be waiting for him to speak. And he never does. Saddest ending in the world. A beautiful movie but wish the Gertie character had been included.

For all of those who believe Gillian Anderson cannot escape the bounds of her Dana Scully character on the X-files, one look at "The House of Mirth" will change that opinion. From the moment she walks out of the cloud of steam created by a train and turns her veiled face to Eric Stoltz, she completely transcends Scully. Anderson plays Lily Bart, who's gambling habit and tendancy to fraternize with men leads to her social downfall in turn of the century New York. She knows she should marry a man with money, but she loves Stoltz's character, Lawrence Seldon, a young attorney who is financially secure but not well off. Through a series of social blunders and failures to understand the motives of several characters, Lily soon finds herself on the outside of society living as a drug addict and making hats. Gillian Anderson plays Lily with such heart-breaking stubborness that most of the time you want to climb through the screen and shake her. But this is a typical Edith Wharton story, and the good guys rarely, if ever, come out on top. Watching Anderson's physical change is one of the most amazing aspects of this film. In the beginning, she is bright and bubbly with a perfect complexion and clear eyes. By the end, her exhaustion and addiction is palpable--her entire body seems to have changed in some way. Here's hoping that more parts like this await Gillian Anderson when she breaks free from X-files.

House of Mirth was actually number one on my Christmas list of must-read books last year. I'd heard so much about the movie, I forced myself to abstain from watching it until I finished this sure-to-be intensely satisfying book. I'm sure it's because I'm not used to Edith Wharton's writing style, but I think she may've been alergic to action. There's plenty of self-examination from our heroine, Lily Bart, and her seemingly endless commentary on society and her place in it. Thankfully, we're spared much of that in the film. The film brings up many interesting points that I'm sure the book discussed, had I cared at the time. Is Lily Bart a martyr for accomplished, well-to-do ladies of her circle? Does she surrender too soon? Does her weakness say more about her or society? It really is rather a disturbing look at societal politics and how quickly the upper echelons of society could eliminate or alienate rivals by rumor, slander or even the hint of impropriety. As much as I initially loathed Lily Bart and her ineptitude, I really should sympathize because she's not a survivalist in the skilled, strong work-ethic sort of way. She wasn't bred for that. We get early on that even she knows she's doomed to failure. She's given several opportunities to get back in the game, but shuns them out of pride or loyalty to her friends. Gillian Anderson is exceptional in the film because she understands Lily Bart is an uncomplicated woman. She wants to be a part of high society but won't step on anyone to get there or take the easy way out. She knows Lily's imperfections but she'd explain that they're necessary if she's to fight for her place in the world. That's all she knows. I do love the entire cast in this film, especially Dan Aykroyd as Gus Trenor. Some people dislike the casting of Aykroyd and I too think his presence is rather jarring. I'm waiting for him to whip out his proton pack. But his odd, slimy salesman presense was a brilliant choice as we instinctively don't want him anywhere near Lily. I'm rather partial to this film for restoring the bitter disappointment I felt for the book. I really find it more interesting to watch Lily's star gradually diminish without needing a constant commentary from the heroine. We only need to see how she reacts. She isn't able to share her inmost feelings and I think her silent, self-struggle, is what makes the audience wish they could help her or be her confidant.

Edith Wharton (1862-1937), like Henry James, is a great American author neglected these days, the whims of fashion changing, books and book reading not what they used to be. But in her day Wharton was considered the pre-eminent female novelist in the U.S.Where does the odd title of the book (and film) come from? It comes from the Bible:“The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth.”— Ecclesiastes 7:4Societies with the capacity to mourn are considered serious, have gravitas, say the Scriptures. Those devoid of it are frivolous and shallow. The world of the heroine of this story (Lily Bart) is not serious. The people in her New York social set, circa 1905, are rich, idle, spoiled, feckless. They are allergic to work, but not to malicious gossip, envy and spite. Money is the measure of everything for them, the more the better, enough never enough. Those with more are superior. Those with less want more as high-class schemers, jockeying with others in high society. Ostentation is not for amusement only; it’s an outward expression of success and a stick with which to beat down interlopers. You would think these rich people would be happy, but no, this isn’t so. Wealth has done nothing to improve their characters. In fact it has made many of them worse. The world described here, vicious and savage, is not a pretty one, its people nasty, callous and mean beneath its mannered surface.The story is partly moral. How does a person, essentially good and fair-minded (such as Lily), maintain her goodness in the company of spiritually corrupt companions? Not easily, as we shall see. She needs money and position to thrive in society. But she also needs protection, her integrity and sense of self-worth constantly challenged. Add to this love. The thought of marriage without it is intolerable to her. But how to find it in this venal crowd?Lily’s blush or bloom, as it used to be said of women, is now fading. She’s 29 and still unattached say the whisperers. Women in their child-bearing prime are 25 or younger, and men are acutely aware of this. So without a large fortune of her own Lily deals from a position of weakness.Lawrence Seldon is a man roughly Lily’s age who has known her for years. They are very friendly, the spark of passion always there but never quite igniting. Why not? Seldon adores Lily but remains reticent, restrained, aloof, distant. Why so? The clearest interpretation is that he feels he can’t provide for her in the manner he thinks she expects. He’s a lawyer, which means he must work, rare for the idle men in her circle. He isn’t independently wealthy. Why should this matter to Lily? Perhaps it doesn’t, but if she feels it matters to him on her account it may contribute to her own reticence, her inability to commit to him. Why their lack of courage? It’s almost as if the social conventions of speaking, of addressing one another, get in the way of telling one another how they truly feel. They can’t communicate, or fear what it would mean if they did. By holding back he grants her the freedom to make a better, more suitable match for herself. For him it’s sacrifice, while for us it looks like cowardice. Maybe it’s both.On one level Wharton’s writing is satire, her story a comedy of manners and errors. It highlights the absurdity and futility of aristocratic life in America, an imitative copy of a bad European original. But she describes it as tragedy, not comedy, and Terence Davies, the fine lyrical English director of the film, portrays it faithfully as such. Lily’s errors of judgement seem harmless at first. She will not compromise her heart. But a series of mistakes and missteps she makes will accumulate and endanger her.She’s a beautiful charmer and uses her gifts to dance around men, leading them on. It’s what she’s best at, what she’s been trained to do all her life. It’s not that by toying with them she means to hurt them. She wants to get close but not too close for a closer look. She wants to see as much as she can before committing. She does so again and again with many and concludes she can’t commit.Percy Gryce is an example. She met him at the Trenor’s estate at Bellomont. He’s an eligible young bachelor with a massive inheritance. He’s looking for a wife and Lily knows it. So she charms him to get closer, to look him over so to speak. Ugh! Boring and unattractive. Wooden, humourless, rigid, pious. No, it’s impossible. The situation reminds one of Jane Austen, aged 27 in 1802, consenting to marry a dull neighbour of hers, he with the preposterous name of Harris Bigg-Wither. She says yes to his proposal after dinner, goes to bed, can’t sleep, breaks off the engagement the following morning, dashing her hopes of ever marrying.Lily does the right thing for the sake of her heart. She rejects what she knows would be wrong for her, just as Jane Austen did.There are other temptations too, rich men who offer her money for their selfish purposes. One is Gus Trenor, a married man. Another is Simon Rosedale, a rich property developer. Rosedale proposes to her but she cannot accept. He claims to love her but she thinks he only loves himself. She will not become a decorative ornament to make him shine.At one point in the novel Lily asks herself:“Why can one never do a natural thing without screening it behind a structure of artifice?”It’s a question that can be asked of the entire society she inhabits.Three things conspire to accelerate Lily’s descent in society.One is her carelessness with money. She will receive an inheritance of 10,000 dollars when Aunt Julia, her guardian, dies. But she squanders much of it by running up a shopping tab and also by playing bridge at parties (usually losing). She is foolish to think the money-flow tap will remain open indefinitely. She is naïve and gullible.Second, she trusts Gus Trenor to make good on investing part of her future inheritance. He does not and the loss will be hers, not his.Third, a horrid socialite named Bertha Dorset engineers a scandal that compromises Lily’s reputation in society. Lily is accused of impropriety with Bertha’s husband George. There’s no truth in this, but suspicion grows, alienating others from Lily.Add to this her complicated feelings for Lawrence Seldon. Hope in his love is the thing that sustains her as others begin to fall away, abandoning her.Edith Wharton knew she was writing about insignificant, essentially worthless people. She knew them intimately, having grown up in their world. How could a story about them be made interesting? Her answer was Lily Bart, an emotionally complex woman who refuses to sacrifice her authenticity. Toward the end of her life Wharton wrote the following in her memoirs about The House of Mirth:“A frivolous society can acquire dramatic significance only through what its frivolity destroys. Its tragic implication lies in its power to debase people and ideals. Once I understood this the tale rushed on toward its climax.”All eyes in this production are on Lily, which is to say Gillian Anderson. She came to notice doing sci-fi on American TV, her depths largely hidden there. They are not here. Sometimes she needn’t say anything. A glance or expression is enough, her face beautifully reflected by a mirror or window pane. The poetry in this film is largely visual.At one tender point in the story Lily asks Seldon:“Why is it whenever we meet we always play this elaborate game?”She says this with her head resting on his shoulder, her lips still wet from his kiss.He has no answer, remains silent.Silence is at the heart of this tragedy, a silence of love undeclared, an act that leads in turn to so many things love will not redeem.

Coined "the performance of her career," was written way too early in Gillian Anderson's! However, she plays Lily Bart better than I can imagine anyone else ever attempting (should they dare). Set in 1900 NYC, Edith Wharton's "tragic love story" is more Lily Bart's tragic life story than not. The primary social issue dealt with is the hypocrisy of the aristocracy. I have something to add beyond the film itself that seems even more important: Gillian Anderson receives accolades for this performance, to be sure. As such, on the DVD there's a special feature of Anderson discussing in depth what her processes and techniques are for becoming a character and performing a role. The intimate details she reveals go well beyond the scope of this one film! As I listened to her talk about how she feels about her wardrobe and it's impact on her being in character, as she envisions that character and channels through herself that character, I had just finished viewing the entire 2013-16 series, "The Fall," starring Gillian Anderson as DSI Stella Gibson ( a role she now claims was her favorite of all time, to date, anyway). Anderson's explications about and reflections on why she does this, or how she became that sent epiphanies shooting off like fireworks because her approaches to acting royally culminated par excellance when she played DSI Stella Gibson, over a decade later! That special feature on this DVD is worth so much more than anything anyone's ever written about Gillian Anderson's acting. It is a remarkable interview that's nearly a long monologue. Don't miss out on the opportunity to view it~

WhenI read the book I did not understand the title. I felt the word "no" should be in there. The film is the same.It tells of Lily who is part of New York society at the start of the 20th. Century. She is single and without wealth. She requires a good marriage. However that does not happen as she unfairly gets a "bad" reputation. Wealth she hoped to inherit does not come to her. There follows a downward spiral in her life with no happy ending. The book is a masterpiece and the film manages to convey the essence of the work. Gillian Anderson. Is marvellous in the lead justly nominated for an Award. The period atmosphere is outstanding. Well worth viewing but not for the depressed!

This excellent film has been brilliantly reviewed by several people.I will just add that Film 4 had the kindness to include English subtitlesfor the Hard-of-Hearing, for both the film and the bounty of manyextra features. Highly recommended!

This movie is incredible! The acting is second to none and I'm so glad I found it. I genuinely thought of Gillian Anderson as just Scully from the X-Files until I watched this and realised that she can act her socks off and is capable of SO much more then one character. I'd recommend this without a doubt for anyone and not just fans of Gillian Anderson through the X-Files